Car Reviews

We at Car and Driver are sadly aware that younger readers view several editors here as, well, old farts, hopelessly mired in the automotive past as new trends threaten to pass us by at speeds that would twist our turtlenecks and wrinkle our Sansabelt slacks.

Camaro ZL1 1LE vs. Challenger SRT vs. Shelby GT500

The Ultimate Mustang vs. the Ultimate Camaro

Mustang GT PPL2 vs. Mustang Shelby GT350

This point is driven home by confoundingly frequent reader letters and e-mails—some containing correct spellings, giving us all hope for the future of public schools—that point accusing fingers at those of us who actually remember the name of that backup group Paul McCartney used to play with. We can picture you there at the keyboard of your iMac, forefinger tapping your nose ring for inspiration, as you whip out a pithy note insisting that your nitrous-sniffing slammed Honda Civic is the future, and that the gas-guzzling V-8s we hold so dear are dinosaurs.

But on this V-8 thing—we gotta agree to disagree. Several of us sitting around at lunch were talking about great exhaust sounds (our lunches really are as exciting as you imagine!) when we almost unanimously agreed that we grew up listening to the American V-8, and to us, that was the sound of power.

Unanimously, except for a fresh-faced road warrior who drives an old Acura Integra. “When I think of the sound of fast cars,” he offered, “I think of, you know, like, really tuned four-cylinders.” Ah, youth.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

All this introspection turned our attention to the trio of throwbacks, the keepers of the flame: the Ford Mustang, the Chevy Camaro, the Pontiac Firebird. They meet the LAF criteria—loud, affordable, fast. We felt it was time to revisit these pony cars and see how well the idea of rear-wheel-drive V-8s has fared.
So we ordered up the hottest stuff: Ford’s new-for-’99 SVT Mustang Cobra, the Chevrolet Camaro Z28 SS, and the Pontiac Firebird Trans Am. Send us the fastest models available from our local dealers, we said. Manual transmissions, we demanded (they still make those, right?). And while you’re at it, chop the tops. We want to feel the wind rushing through (what is left of) our hair. It’ll make us feel young again!

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

As long as we can get home by 10 p.m., and be in bed by 11.
We drove the trio down to Honda’s Transportation Research Center in Ohio for testing, which included top-speed blasts around the 7.5-mile oval. Then we went to GingerMan Raceway in western Michigan, an 11-turn road course where we spent the better part of a day thrashing the three cars.
And then we summoned a fellow old fart, a literal graybeard, who graciously set aside his walker and lapped the three cars for us. That particular graybeard was Paul Gentilozzi, 49, the 1998 Sports Car Club of America Trans-Am champion, who started 1999 with a win at the Long Beach Grand Prix, resoundingly kicking the collective butts of a bunch of snot-nosed youngsters.
Sound interesting? Read on.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Third Place: Pontiac Firebird Trans Am
A former staffer once assigned to write a Pontiac Trans Am road test mentioned to his associates that he wished he could hang a sign out the window that read, “This is not my car!” Invariably dramatic, the Trans Am’s styling has crossed over to the snarkily garish, and the limited-edition 30th-anniversary package is just slightly beyond garish.

HIGHS: Unmistakable styling, 163-mph top speed, monster motor.

For an extra $1575, that package gives you 17-inch aluminum wheels with a blue clear-coat tint sprayed on, a blue cloth top, white leather seats with anniversary-edition embroidery on the headrests, and several other trim pieces. We could not help feeling we were about to be arrested by Starsky or Hutch.
That said, when the three cars were parked together, invariably the attention of civilians turned first to our Firebird, No. 0052 according to a dash plaque. When we took the car to a McDonald’ s drive-through, the pimply slacker who waited on us could scarcely contain his bubbling hormones, immediately summoning a half-dozen fellow slackers to drool all over our Quarter Pounders. “Odd,” wrote one tester. “This car is absolutely coveted by people who can’t afford it.”

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

It was by far the most expensive of the three, topping out at $37,092, a price bolstered by the non-anniversary $595 trunk-mounted, 12-disc CD changer, which was in addition to the in-dash CD player that comes with the potent Monsoon sound system. Mostly, though, you’re paying for exclusivity, as only 500 anniversary convertibles and 1000 anniversary coupes will be sold in the U.S.
If you’re looking for the fastest car of the trio, your search stops here. The Trans Am matched the Camaro with a 5.3-second 0-to-60-mph time, but then the Trans Am pulled away, hitting 100 mph 0.2 second quicker, 130 mph 1.8 seconds quicker, and finally a governed 163 mph, whereas the Camaro ran out of steam at 160.

LOWS: Unmistakable styling, awkward trunk layout, poor rear visibility, handling less precise than Camaro’s.

Why? We aren’t certain. The Trans Am has the heavily advertised Ram Air, fed to the air filter through a baffled snout. The Camaro has a more circuitous system—its hood scoop feeds a little air to the air cleaner through two long ducts that route from the middle of the hood to the rear and back to the front. Although we doubt the Pontiac’s Ram Air system is sealed up against the air cleaner well enough to pressurize intake air, we suspect it does, at least, deliver more cool air. We also suspect the Trans Am’s engine may be just a hair stouter than the SS’s. Or maybe the Trans Am’s flip-up headlights, although clunky when operated, are aerodynamically slicker. Regardless, this was a waaay quick car.
On the test track and the racetrack, though, the Pontiac had the sloppiest handling. It weighs a scant 43 pounds more than the Camaro, but nearly all of that extra weight is on the nose, making it understeer more. The suspension also allowed excessive body motions. “Twitchier than the Camaro,” wrote one tester after the lane-change maneuver, “requiring a delicate touch.”

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

At GingerMan Raceway, “there’s more body roll than in the Camaro,” wrote another tester, and under hard cornering, “I can hear the tires hitting the wheel wells.” The Hurst shifter—also on the Camaro—received criticism: “It’s the only one I ever miss shifts in.” There was substantial brake fade after extended lapping, slightly more severe than the Camaro’s.
On the road, though, the Trans Am was an entirely competent cruiser. “I love the way it lopes along in sixth gear at 85 mph,” wrote one tester. When introduced in the 1997 Chevrolet Corvette, the LS1 engine’s exhaust note seemed slightly sterile. On the Trans Am and SS, it’s as sweet as the old LT1 ever was.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Inside, the Pontiac’s front seats drew the highest marks, mostly because of the adjustable side bolsters and lumbar support, but its thinly padded steering wheel drew the lowest. Instruments and controls were where they should be, and the Trans Am was the only one of the three with steering-wheel-operated sound controls.

VERDICT: Your only choice if you wanna go fast and be noticed.

Like the two other cars, dropping the top requires unlatching the windshield header before powering the top down. It’s a fifteen-second job on all three. Still, we think the GM twins make slightly better convertibles than the Ford. Wind buffeting at speed is lower in the Pontiac and Chevy, and chassis stiffness seemed slightly better, too. All the tops were watertight in the carwash, and none suffered any flap or flutter at maximum speed. The Mustang had the best, easiest-to-use tonneau cover—it’s a soft one-piece unit, whereas the GM cars use a hard three-piece unit—but we’d leave all of them at home, as they dominate the already minimal trunk space.
Given the fact that the Pontiac and the Chevrolet are built on the same assembly line, GM has done a reasonably effective job of giving them unique identities. If you like the Trans Am’s identity—and are among those admirers who can actually afford to buy one—we sure won’t try to talk you out of it. From the suspension up, though, Chevy’s version is more our kind of car.
1999 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am320-hp V-8, 6-speed manual, 3617 lbBase/as-tested price: $34,255/$37,092C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 5.3 sec100 mph: 12.61/4 mile: 13.9 @ 104 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 178 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.82 gC/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Second Place: Ford SVT Mustang Cobra
Speaking of throwbacks, we keep wondering when Ford’s exalted upper management will discover that the Special Vehicle Team exists and appears to be having fun, and therefore must be eliminated. This little group of in-house skunkworkers is currently responsible for three very potent, very limited-edition hot rods: the SVT Contour, the F-150 Lightning pickup, and the Mustang Cobra.

HIGHS: Freshest styling, high-tech powerplant, independent rear suspension, killer brakes when flogged, cheapest of the three.

Going into this comparison test, the just-released Cobra convertible had to be seeded the favorite. It’s the freshest makeover of a moderately dated platform and has the new, SVT-exclusive independent rear suspension. The standard Mustang, as well as GM’s Camaro and Firebird competitors, still use a rigid rear axle.
The Cobra’s engine is also the most up-to-date, with the 4.6-liter V-8 sporting four valves per cylinder and double overhead camshafts, while the GM entries have two-valve pushrod technology in their 5.7-liter V-8s. This modernized technology allows the Cobra to pump out an advertised 320 horsepower for 1999—exactly matching the GM motors’ although it spots them 65 cubic inches. The displacement deficit explains the Ford’s 18 less pound-feet of torque. At least the Ford can rev much higher—to 6800 rpm vs. the 6000 rpm of the GM twins.
The Cobra was the least expensive of the three, with an out-the-door price of $32,190. Although hardly bare-bones, it ranked lowest on our “features” scale, but only by a few points. Whereas the GM cars had leather on all seating surfaces, the Cobra had leather up front and leather-look vinyl in the rear. The rather heavy hood was held up by a balky prop rod, whereas the GM cars used hydraulic shocks. The manual transmission was a five-speed, whereas the GM twins had six-speeds. Relatively minor points, perhaps, but this was a comparison test that was, in the end, decided by minor points.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

One thing in the Cobra’s favor was its rear quarter-windows. It’s more work to build a convertible with four side windows instead of two, but having that little bit of extra glass back there provides the car with considerably better rearward visibility. Measured from the front edge of the convertible top to the outward edge of the back window, you’d find a 32-inch blind spot on the GM cars. That blind spot is 22 inches on the Mustang, thanks mostly to the extra glass those rear side windows provide.
“A very quiet ride for a convertible at 90 mph,” one tester noted in the logbook. “A very high, upright driving position, even with the power seat adjusted all the way down.” The driving position seemed even more so after stints in the Camaro and Firebird, where the seating position is largely butt-on-the-floor.
Although none of the front seats drew raves, the Mustang’s drew only complaints for their lack of lateral support and their puny headrests. And although none of these cars is noted for rear-seat room or access, the Mustang’s was the least roomy, with less kneeroom and far less headroom. In any of these cars, the rear seat is best left for groceries and small people.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

Despite the plasticky dash, the Cobra’s controls were the easiest to use, except for the button-happy sound system. The black-on-white-face instruments had a pleasant green glow at night, an SVT trademark. The Mach 460 sound system—an AM/FM/cassette with a separate in-dash CD player—was a close second to the Monsoon system in the Trans Am, but to our aging ears, all three stereo systems were excellent. Although these three cars each have eight cubic feet of trunk space, the Mustang’s is in a far more usable configuration.
On the road, the Cobra seemed the most buttoned down, especially on rough pavement, where the independent rear suspension shines. We still found room for improvement, however. “Well balanced, but steering feel is minimal,” a tester wrote. “The wheel is simply a directional dial. There’s also a soft, somewhat disconnected sense here, although the car is very well behaved.”

LOWS: Five-speed transmission could use another gear, smaller engine means less torque, mediocre seats.

The Cobra offered the best roadholding and was the clear winner in the lane change. “The easiest to drive in this exercise by far,” we noted. “Steering response is gradual and accurate, and when the tail does break away, the slide is smooth and controlled.”
Although the Cobra’s beefy brakes took 189 feet to stop from 70 mph, compared with 175 for the Camaro and 178 for the Firebird, once they heated up at the racetrack, they were superb. “After a long lapping session at the racetrack,” a tester wrote, “the Mustang is the only one of the three that still has brakes.”
In a straight line, though, the Cobra suffered. Zero to 60 mph took 6.0 seconds in the Mustang and just 5.3 seconds in both GM cars. The quarter-mile time for the Cobra was 14.6 seconds, with the Camaro and Firebird doing it in 13.9. Surprisingly, the independent rear suspension made the Cobra slightly more prone to wheel hop and consequently more difficult, rather than easier, to launch smoothly off the line. We’d expected the opposite.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

In top-speed times, the Mustang really suffered, due mostly to the gearing. Its 149-mph top speed was reached in fourth gear with the engine screaming along at 6550 rpm, well above the Cobra’s 6000-rpm power peak. Shift into fifth, and speed dropped to 140 mph. The Camaro and the Trans Am didn’t have this problem. Their gearing allows top speeds much closer to the power peaks of their engines.
On paper, the Cobra convertible’s numbers appeared to be in the ballpark. When we tested the Cobra coupe (C/D, April 1999), our 0-to-60-mph time was 5.5 seconds, with a quarter-mile time of 14.1 seconds and an identical top speed. Given the fact that our convertible weighed about 300 pounds more than the coupe we tested in April, that seemed plausible.
But to several of us, the Cobra did not have the punch we were expecting or have experienced with other 320-hp Cobras. We called SVT about our test results, and it said, indeed, that was slower than expected.

VERDICT: Competent, quick, and exclusive, but you’ll lose every drag race to the two others.

And when SVT got its car back, this was confirmed. In fact, that led SVT to look at the batch of engines produced when our Cobra convertible was built, and according to a commendably candid spokesman, the engines might have a problem. But at this writing, SVT doesn’t know what it is. We’re confident SVT can and will correct any problems, not only in future cars, but also in those already shipped to dealers.
SVT promptly sent over a Cobra convertible with an engine from a different batch, and it was indeed quicker—0 to 60 mph in a more-like-it 5.6 seconds instead of 6.0 seconds; a quarter-mile run of 14.2 seconds at 100 mph instead of 14.6 seconds at 98 mph. Top speed remained 149 mph. If we’d had that car for the whole test, the Cobra might have scored slightly higher, but it’s doubtful it would have passed the Camaro.
1999 Ford SVT Mustang Cobra320-hp V-8, 5-speed manual, 3588 lbBase/as-tested price: $31,995/$32,190C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 6.0 sec100 mph: 15.31/4 mile: 14.6 @ 98 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 189 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.87 gC/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

First Place: Chevrolet Camaro Z28 SS
When the SS arrived at Hogback Road, we were slightly disappointed. Rather than a dynamic black like the Cobra, or a sparkling white like the Trans Am, the SS was an understated pewter with a black top. We were expecting perhaps arrest-me red.

HIGHS: Clean looks; torquey, great-sounding engine, thorw-it-around handling; attractive price for a convertible.

But the longer we had it, the more handsome it seemed. It has nice, almost elegant lines, complemented by the quiet color. In the end, we gave it the highest marks in styling. And we also appreciated that this was a 160-mph convertible that did not shout its presence to ticket-hungry cops.
It took us less time to appreciate the way the SS went quietly about its business. As fast as the Trans Am up to about 90 mph, the SS bested the two others in general drivability, but only marginally. Much that was said about the Camaro applied to the Firebird, such as: “Every time I get into one of these F-body cars, I’m amazed by their ponderous feel. Although the Camaro is very responsive, I feel as if I’m maneuvering the Queen Mary.”

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

“The steering seems quick off-center,” wrote a tester. “This will take some getting used to.”
That sensation dissipated at the racetrack, where the Camaro’s tighter suspension was obvious. “More composed, responsive, cleaner out here. Not as much steering correction is required for tail-out slides. You can really throw this thing around, and it just hangs on. Amazing, considering the price, and the fact that it’s a droptop,” a tester noted.

LOWS: Arguable less prestigious, same trunk and rear-visibility problems as in Trans Am.

The SS could slither through the emergency-lane-change maneuver as quickly as the Trans Am, but more slowly than the Cobra. “The Camaro has faster, more delicate steering than the Mustang,” recorded a driver. “You must turn in with your fingertips, or you wash out the front end instantly. And when the tail goes, it goes with a big wiggle.”
Both the GM cars wore the same tires—Goodyear Eagle F1 GS P275/40ZR-17s—and they drew few complaints for their performance on wet and dry pavement. The BFGoodrich Comp T/A 245/45ZR-17s on the Mustang worked very well in the dry but skated more than we’d anticipated in the wet.

View Photos

AARON KILEYCar and Driver

The SS’s leather-trimmed interior was undistinguished but thoughtfully executed. The Delco stereo sounded fine and contained an AM/FM/cassette/CD player in one unit. It was the only stereo with a speed-controlled-volume feature.
As with all the F-body cars, there were two inherent problems: The incredibly steep windshield rake means a picnic-table-size dashboard beneath it, and the presence of a catalytic converter beneath the passenger-side floor means a big hump that, when covered with a floor mat, appears as if you’re trying to conceal contraband.

VERDICT: The utility infielder—a race car disguised as daily transportation.

All things considered, though, the Camaro is the car we’d be the most willing to drive on a daily basis. As with the two others, traction control and ABS make the SS nearly a year-round car as long as the snowfall is light and infrequent, but unlike the two others, the Camaro seems less like a midlife-crisis car and more like an opportunity to sensibly recapture a little of the past.
And get you home by 10 p.m., and in bed by 11.
1999 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 SS320-hp V-8, 6-speed manual, 3574 lbBase/as-tested price: $32,085/$33,995C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 5.3 sec100 mph: 12.81/4 mile: 13.9 @ 103 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 175 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 gC/D observed fuel economy: 16 mpg
How a Pro Rates These Pony Cars
The Chevrolet Camaro, the Pontiac Firebird, and the Ford Mustang make up most of the field in the Sports Car Club of America’s BFGoodrich Trans-Am Series. Although 1998 champ Paul Gentilozzi dominated the series with a Chevrolet Corvette, for 1999 he has switched to Ford. The new-for-’99 SVT Cobra came out of the box a winner. Gentilozzi drove it to victory in the Long Beach Grand Prix, the first race of the year.
Of course, as is typical with many of the professional racing series, Gentilozzi’s Mustang Cobra has comparatively little in common with the civilian version. It uses a tube-frame chassis and a 625-hp V-8, but Trans-Am race cars still have more in common with roadgoing pony cars than do the cars in any other racing series—a front engine, rear-wheel drive, a manual transmission, and a honking V-8.
We asked the current champ to weigh in on the latest Camaro, Mustang, and Firebird ragtop performance versions. After Gentilozzi agreed, we rented GingerMan Raceway, the 1.88-mile road course in western Michigan where we tested his championship-winning Corvette (C/D, November 1998), and turned him loose. Several staffers also drove multiple laps in the cars, and our observations were quite similar to his.
As far as credentials, Gentilozzi’s win at Long Beach came in his 138th Trans-Am race. He had seven wins last year en route to the championship, leading 438 of the 674 laps run in 1998. He has also won the Rolex 24 Hours of Daytona and finished third in his class at the 24 Hours of Le Mans. At 49, he believes he’s driving better than ever, and his results back that up.
We timed Gentilozzi, and for a baseline, we also timed senior technical editor Don Schroeder, who more than held his own. Worth noting: Gentilozzi’s Trans‑Am Cobra laps GingerMan about 20 seconds faster than the quickest of our cars.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

Ford SVT Mustang CobraGentilozzi: 1 minute, 41.6 seconds at 66.6 mphC/D: 1:42.0 at 66.4 mph
Even though Gentilozzi drives a Mustang and his racing program gets some help from Ford, we’ve spent enough time around the real-estate tycoon to know that, if he doesn’t like something, he’ll say so. We were confident he wouldn’t sugar-coat any criticism of the Mustang if it deserved criticizing. And it did, but it also deserved praise.
“The brakes and the gearbox are the best part of the car,” Gentilozzi said. “The power is down compared to the other two, so you can’t just get on the gas and control the balance of the car. If they’re going to build a four-valve engine, it ought to be the 5.4-liter, so they can get back some of the torque they’re giving up to the other two.”
The Cobra is deceptive. Gentilozzi said that even though the lack of torque kept the car from squirting out of the corners the way the GM twins do, he felt he was turning quicker lap times with the Cobra because of the handling—”Less entry oversteer with this independent rear suspension,” he said—and the excellent brakes. “You aren’t going to win drag races with this car, but it’d hold its own in a road race.”

View Photos

AARON KILEY

Pontiac Firebird Trans AmGentilozzi: 1:41.2 at 66.9 mphC/D: 1:40.6 at 67.3 mph
That’s right—our guy knocked out a quicker lap time in the Trans Am than did the Trans-Am champ. Gentilozzi said it just didn’t suit his driving style. “There’s a lot of entry roll coming into the corners,” Gentilozzi said. “You unload the back end, and that causes oversteer.”
As we all did, he praised the stout engine. “There’s plenty of power, and the gearbox is nice, and the driving position is good. But this steering—you get no feel for the road. You hold the steering wheel in a certain position, and you feel you should be getting a certain amount of turn-in, but you don’t.” Under hard braking, Gentilozzi noticed some rear-axle hop—”The last car I had that hopped like this was my ’68 Camaro Z28. It’s disconcerting.”
Gentilozzi could not resist a comment about the Trans Am’s styling. “This one’s Penthouse,” he said, pointing to the Camaro SS. “And that one’s Hustler,” he said, pointing to the Trans Am.

View Photos

AARON KILEY

Chevrolet Camaro Z28 SSGentilozzi: 1:39.7 at 67.9 mphC/D: 1:40.3 at 67.5 mph
“It doesn’t fight you as much as the Firebird,” Gentilozzi said, dirt-tracking the Camaro SS through a sweeper. “And it’s definitely more forgiving.” He found the Camaro to be more precise in the entry and exit of turns. “I know this is basically the same car as the Firebird, so the differences must be just general calibrations on the suspension. But this one seems like the best hot rod of the bunch.”
Gentilozzi praised the chassis rigidity of all three cars, and the fact that while they’re capable of cranking out very respectable lap times, they’re also able and willing to serve as daily transportation.
Still, “I don’t drive as many street cars as you do,” he said, “so I guess I’m not as tolerant of some of the crap they make you put up with.” Case in point: Although the timed laps were taken with the traction control turned off, Gentilozzi took some casual laps with the traction control engaged, and he was particularly put off by the invasive nature of the GM system, which kicks back on the accelerator pedal. He was also annoyed by GM’s first-to-fourth shifter, which eliminates second and third gears as a fuel-saving measure when driven leisurely.
You might be interested to learn that Gentilozzi’s daily driver is a chrome yellow Ferrari 550 Maranello. That will just have to do until the new Ferrari 360 Modena he has on order arrives. —SCS
What Does the Future Hold for Pony Cars?
Let’s face it: it was much easier for Ford and General Motors to justify building these three cars when they shared platforms or assorted bits and pieces with existing products. They don’t anymore. The one with the most promising future, though appears to be the Mustang, which continues to sell nearly twice as many cars as the Camaro and Firebird combined. The 1999 Mustang benefited from an extensive freshening, so we’re guessing it will be around at least through 2002. After that, rumors are that if it is to continue, it could be built on the Lincoln LS platform that will serve as a basis for the 2001 Ford Thunderbird.
As for the Camaro and Firebird, the Canadian plant will definitely cease production of the two. There will be 2001 models, we hear. Beyond that, their fate is murky.
Several possibilities loom at GM, though, for a rear-drive V-8 car. One is to adopt the Holden platform currently being developed in Australia but that, for various reasons, is not expected to happen. Another presented to us by one GM exec is to keep the Firebird name but drop the Camaro, making the Firebird a semiluxury four-passenger coupe on the Cadillac Evoq platform, and leave the Corvette to Chevrolet.
A final scenario has the Camaro being moved upscale, sharing a platform with the Corvette, built in the underutilized Vette plant in Bowling Green, Kentucky. We might see some movement in that direction as early as this fall. Rumor is that Chevy is building a show car for the Specialty Equipment. Market Association trade show that is, in essence, a four-seat Corvette, possibly testing the water.
And a final, fanciful scenario was broached at a press event for the new front-drive Monte Carlo. “You know,” said one Chevy exec, “this platform could be made rear-wheel drive quite easily.” —SCS
Shooing the Breeze
In the good old days, wind in the hair was the allure of convertibles, but in this era of cell phones, digital stereo sound, and $60 hairdos, wind-reducing devices are all the rage. Most high-end ragtops offer custom-fit clear-plastic or mesh-screen wind blockers that fit just behind the front seats to prevent backdrafts from entering the cockpit.
Chevy, Ford, and Pontiac do not offer such devices, but Wind Baffle (888-266-WIND) sells a product for $249 (plus shipping) that can be mounted in most convertibles on the road today. The Wind Baffle’s polycarbonate panel is 30 inches wide by 20 inches high. It installs like a tension rod for curtains. Two spring rods adjust laterally to fit the width of the car, and each fits into a small plastic cup that mounts to the side trim panel with adhesive-backed hook-and-loop fasteners. A third vertical rod presses down onto the rear seat or package shelf for stability. A safety cable tethers the unit to the front seat. With the Wind Baffle installed, the rear seat can’t be used but the top can be raised and lowered.
The Wind Baffle dramatically reduced backdrafts and wind noise in all three pony cars, although wind still tickled the tops of our heads. It rendered the more aerodynamic Camaro and Firebird cockpits nearly still with the windows up—even at speeds of 110 mph. The Cobra was transformed from tornado-watch gusty to merely breezy, and the backdraft was nearly eliminated. Reducing cockpit turbulence improves the effectiveness of the climate controls, so this product should help to extend the convertible driving season. For the acid test of the Wind Baffle’s mounting system, we logged 1600 miles in a buzzy, rattly, flexy vintage British roadster, and it only popped loose twice. At the price, the Wind Baffle seems like a must. —Frank Markus
This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

From the November 2002 issue of Car and Driver.
According to Toyota senior vice-president and general manager Don Esmond, mid-size SUVs now account for 10 percent of all vehicles sold in the U.S and are the biggest sellers in the SUV category.
So it doesn’t seem unreasonable for Toyota to have two players in that category: the Highlander, which is a car-based monocoque vehicle, and the 4Runner, which is a body-on-frame vehicle with truck DNA and better off-road potential.

2005 SUV Showdown

Best SUVs and Crossovers of 2020

The 4Runner got here first, having played the market for 18 years in three successive generations. Make that four. The new 4Runner is here as a 2003 model, and it’s bigger, heavier, and more powerful than ever before.
Seeking improvements in comfort, on- and off-road handling, safety, performance, and economy, Toyota has completely reinvented the 4Runner. Based on the Prado (a sort-of seven-eighths-scale Land Cruiser not sold in this country) rather than the Tacoma, the new vehicle has a wheelbase that is 4.5 inches longer (109.8 inches), as well as an equal increase in overall length (now 187.8 inches).

Highs: Solid build, good refinement, plenty of power.

Accordingly, the stretched 4Runner offers two more inches of front legroom. There’s 0.4 inch more headroom, and the outboard passengers sit two inches farther apart in an interior that’s now four inches wider.
Under the more-spacious bodywork is a new frame with full-length box-section rails and nine fully welded crossmembers. The front crossmember is mounted low enough to engage the bumpers and crash systems of smaller vehicles, and “soft” front-end sheetmetal and a plastic grille are intended to reduce injury to pedestrians.
Two engines are offered in two- and four-wheel-drive configurations. A new 4.0-liter V-6 is now the base motivation for the 4Runner, developing 245 horsepower at 5200 rpm and a hefty 283 pound-feet of torque at 3400 rpm. As well as being Toyota’s first aluminum truck engine, the 1GR-FE (as it’s known internally) is the product of 3-D engine-modeling techniques and features chain-driven camshafts, variable valve timing with intelligence, and variable intake geometry.

DAVID DEWHURST

The upscale engine is a 4.7-liter V-8 related to the i-Force mill found in the Sequoia, Tundra, and Land Cruiser. In this guise it produces 235 horsepower at 4800 rpm and 320 pound-feet of torque at 3400 rpm. As you can see from the numbers, the V-6 has more horsepower, but the V-8 has more torque, and it’s delivered across a very broad rev range.
Thus, our V-8-powered 4Runner SR5 test car purred to 60 mph in just eight seconds–no mean feat for a two-plus-ton SUV with full-time four-wheel drive. We’ll have to wait until we test the V-6 model before we’ll know whether it can duplicate that achievement. Clearly, though, power isn’t a problem in the new 4Runner.
Nor is driveline refinement. The 4Runner shifted smoothly and elegantly in every situation through the five ratios of its new automatic transmission. Selecting low range with the dash-mounted rotary switch–also used in the part-time system on V-6 models to shift from two- to four-wheel drive–was equally transparent.

Lows: A little heavy for serious off-roading, intrusive stability-control systems.

The transfer case in both engine variants uses a lockable Torsen center differential and in normal operating circumstances has a rear-wheel torque bias (the planetary gearing splits torque 40/60 front to rear). It can increase rearward torque distribution up to 70 percent when needed, or send up to 53 percent forward when the rears lose grip.
Combined with a control-arm front suspension and a solid rear axle located by four trailing links and a Panhard rod, the 4Runner’s off-road arsenal looks pretty convincing. And assisting the usual four-wheel-drive traction hardware are two electronic strategies intended to optimize off-road performance. One is Hill-start Assist Control (HAC), a kind of stability-control offshoot that applies brakes and manages torque for tricky uphill launches. The other is Downhill Assist Control (DAC), which works only in low range at an initial speed less than 18 mph when the driver has his feet off the pedals, to maintain a target forward speed of 2 to 4 mph.

DAVID DEWHURST

Here’s the “grade” strategy for the new 4Runner: three trim levels, with either a V-6 or V-8 engine and optional four-wheel drive that is part-time on V-6 vehicles and full-time when teamed with the V-8. The lowest grade is the SR5, which comes with gray-metallic bumpers, lower cladding, and 16-inch steel wheels (alloys are optional) with 265/70R-16 tires. Figure $26,000 to open. Next up is the Sport model, which is pretty much like the SR5 but has a silver-colored grille and roof rails; a hood scoop; fog lamps; color-keyed, heated outside mirrors; and six-spoke, 17-inch alloy wheels with 65-series rubber. Expect to pay at least $33,000 for a Sport.
The top-of-the-line model is the Limited, with color-keyed bumpers and cladding; illuminated running boards; and five-spoke, 17-inch alloys. The 4Runner interiors vary little from grade to grade, but Sport and Limited variants get leather-wrapped steering wheels with audio and cruise controls. The Limited is also fitted with an anti-theft engine immobilizer, a HomeLink transmitter, silver-colored trim in various places, power-adjustable heated front seats, dual-zone climate controls, and a novel double-decker shelf in the cargo compartment for more efficient storage. Loaded up, the Limited should top out at about $40,000.
An option we have not yet mentioned is the X-Relative Absorber System (X-REAS) that is standard for the Sport model and available as an option on the Limited. We like this one. It’s an installation that links diagonally opposed front and rear shock absorbers via a nitrogen-charged center damper as in Audi’s RS 6. The effect is much like that of the diagonal jacking systems found in CART race cars, and it provides additional roll and pitch damping to such an extent that a 4Runner equipped with X-REAS steers into bends with a discernible lack of roll motions.
Despite its greater size and mass, this largish SUV steers precisely, with no corruption of the line from bump steer, roll steer, or any other shifts in geometry. It eases into bends with nicely cushioned body motions and takes a set that a driver can lean on with real confidence. A new hollow steering rack contributes to the plot with smooth and accurate responses.
No wonder the VSC is so cautious. Relying on feedback alone, a 4Runner driver would soon be exploiting the full handling envelope on the basis of this sense of stability. X-REAS can be coupled with an optional rear air suspension (available only on V-8 Limited 4Runners) that replaces the steel coils with reinforced air bladders. These provide automatic load leveling, a switch-selected ride-height increase (up to 1.5 inches) for rough going, and about three-quarters of an inch of height reduction for loading or trailer hauling. Consistent with the 4Runner’s heritage of off-road capability, ground clearance is listed at 9.1 inches.

The Verdict: If you build ’em bigger, they will apparently keep coming.

Toyota’s professed ambitions for the 4Runner were to improve roadgoing stability and comfort without compromising the off-road potential that many consumers treasure, while upgrading the power, space, and safety of the vehicle. In its attempt to do so, the company has added about 350 pounds to the 4Runner. That may be regrettable, but the new 4Runners are nonetheless better in every way than their predecessors. What’s 350 pounds between friends, anyway?

Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS
2003 Toyota 4Runner SR5 V-8 4WD
VEHICLE TYPEFront-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 5-door wagonPRICE AS TESTED$134,235 (C/D est.)ENGINE TYPEDOHC 32-valve V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, port fuel injectionDisplacement285 in3, 4664 cm3Power235 hp @ 4800 rpmTorque320 lb-ft @ 3400 rpm
TRANSMISSION5-speed automatic
CHASSISSuspension (F/R): independent, unequal-length control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar/rigid axle located by 4 trailing links and a Panhard rod, coil springs, anti-roll barBrakes (F/R): 12.6-in vented disc/12.3-in vented discTires: Bridgestone Dueler H/T 689, P265/70TR-16
DIMENSIONSWheelbase: 109.8 inLength: 187.8 inWidth: 73.8 inHeight: 71.2 inCargo volume: 42 ft3Curb weight: 4450 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 8.0 sec100 mph: 28.1 secStreet start, 5–60 mph: 8.2 secTop gear, 30–50 mph: 2.9 secTop gear, 50–70 mph: 5.5 sec1/4 mile: 16.4 sec @ 84 mphTop speed (governor limited): 116 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 190 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.71 g
EPA FUEL ECONOMYCity/highway: 16/19

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

From the Archive: New suspension, new traction control, bigger engine, longer wheelbase. And it’s still chic. More

View Photos
Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

Elementary schools teach us that humans have five senses. Later in life, depending on who you believe, it turns out that there may be many more. Proposed additions to the original five seem a bit dubious—is hunger really a sense, or are you just bored?—but five make the list every time. One of those is our ability to perceive sound. And we do more than perceive it. We seek out noises that are pleasing to us. First came singing, then someone invented the piano, and now we have supercharged V-8 engines. Progress.

HIGHS: Excellent V-8, hearing it coming, clean and elegant exterior design, not a 911.

Of the supercharged V-8s, the one found in the 2021 Jaguar F-type R coupe is a particularly sonorous example. There’s the burbling and cracking soundtrack that Jaguar introduced when they launched the F-type in 2014. But now there’s 575 horsepower and, thanks to the power and traction of all-wheel drive, a 3.5-second run to 60 mph (that’s 0.1 second quicker than a Shelby GT500). Every tap of the accelerator is a gut punch. It’s a special engine, a little talisman against boredom and the indignities of daily life.

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

Updated Jaguar F-Type Tames Some of its Roar

Tested: 2017 Jaguar F-type SVR Convertible

Jaguar is smart to use this engine in the R model. Once exclusive to the top-performing F-type SVR, the SVR’s death allowed the 575-hp V-8 to make it into the slightly less exotic F-type R. The engine is intoxicating and helps distract from the fact that so little was changed in this year’s redesign of this now seven-year-old car. The biggest difference is that a new hood and front end give the F-type a fresh face. In back, taillights are now narrow LED strips, but the rest of the F-type’s exterior changes are harder to spot. Inside, the main difference is that the analog gauges in front of the driver are replaced by a large 12.3-inch digital screen that offers a few different gauge displays.
Aside from the extra 25 horsepower it inherited from the dearly departed SVR, the biggest changes to the F-type R reside in the suspension and chassis. There are new springs, dampers, anti-roll bars, and rear knuckles. Those new elements were designed to improve the R’s ride and improve steering feel. The ride still isn’t what we’d call soft, but it makes Michigan’s uncivilized roads seem nearly civilized. The steering communicates better than in some lesser sports coupes we’ve driven lately, but responses are just a bit too twitchy.

LOWS: Cramped cabin, extra power doesn’t improve acceleration, not a 911.

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

Perceived ride and handling improvements aside, the F-type failed to achieve any meaningful performance improvements as a result of its various tweaks and upgrades. A trip to the test track returned performance numbers that were almost identical to those we recorded in an F-type R in 2015. Skidpad grip is strong at 1.0 g, but a 1.0-g car isn’t as astonishing as it used to be; a 911 can pull 1.08 g.
There are some other small problems with the F-type R. The cabin remains cramped, and seat travel is severely limited by the bulkhead that separates cabin from cargo area. If two hours in the F-type induced back pain in our young, active reviewer, imagine the effect it will have on drivers in Jag’s target demographic. There were also a few maladies that befell this particular F-type. The rear spoiler wouldn’t deploy on command, though it did stand at attention when the car was traveling at high speed. The door handles, which are designed to lay flush with the door panel when not in use, refused to retract into their shells even when the car was parked and locked.

View Photos

Marc UrbanoCar and Driver

This car’s $115,110 asking price makes those foibles and the unchanged performance harder to swallow, but it’s not all bad in the F-type. It feels and looks upscale. If any of the interior surfaces are covered in something that’s not leather, we were fooled. The 14 cubic feet of cargo space is plenty for a weekend trip, and twice what you get in the convertible. The F-type coupe is one of the best-looking cars on the road today, with an exterior design that’s arresting without straying into ostentatiousness. And the as-tested price drops if you’re willing to forgo the $4500 paint color. Plus, there’s that exhaust note. It’s almost enough to make you drain your 401(k).

Specifications

Specifications
2021 Jaguar F-Type R Coupe
VEHICLE TYPE front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED $115,110 (base price: $104,225)
ENGINE TYPE supercharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injectionDisplacement 305 in3, 5000 cm3Power 575 hp @ 6500 rpmTorque 516 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
TRANSMISSION 8-speed automatic
CHASSIS Suspension (F/R): multilink/control armsBrakes (F/R): 15.0-in vented disc/14.8-in vented discTires: Pirelli P Zero PZ4, F: 265/35R-20 (99Y) J R: 305/30R-20 (93Y) J
DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 103.2 inLength: 176.0 inWidth: 75.7 inHeight: 51.5 inPassenger volume: 51 ft3Cargo volume: 14 ft3Curb weight: 4105 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS 60 mph: 3.5 sec100 mph: 8.2 sec130 mph: 13.9 sec150 mph: 19.6 secRolling start, 5–60 mph: 3.9 secTop gear, 30–50 mph: 2.1 secTop gear, 50–70 mph: 2.9 sec1/4 mile: 11.7 sec @ 121 mphTop speed (mfr’s claim): 186 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 155 ftBraking, 100–0 mph: 307 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.00 gStanding-start accel times omit 1-ft rollout of 0.2 sec.
C/D FUEL ECONOMY Observed: 17 mpg75-mph highway driving: 27 mpgHighway range: 490 miles
EPA FUEL ECONOMY Combined/city/highway: 18/16/24 mpg

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

From the January 1978 issue of Car and Driver.
Trucks aren’t cars. Everybody knows that. But a funny thing has happened recently: Trucks have been selling like cars, and their manufacturers have discovered that many of the people who buy them treat them like cars. And the manufacturers, never slow to spot a dollar waiting to jump into a corporate account, have responded by giving those folks trucks that are even more carlike. So for every genuine killer Baja-buster with monster tires, roll cage, massed banks of quartz-halogen lights and mile-high door sills you see, there are ten mild-mannered supermarket trucks out there running back and forth everyday to the PTA, grocery store and office. Repli-trucks, you might say.

The 2020 Ford Bronco Is Getting an EcoBoost Engine

Take a Look at the 2021 Ford Bronco’s Interior

What Ford Revealed in Its New Bronco Ad

Why has Ford introduced a ’78 Bronco that can be ordered with air conditioning, cruise control, luxury upholstery and imitation wood-grain paneling, a Bronco that can cost as much as $10,000) and still have less cargo room than a good mini-pickup? Who’s buying these things? And why?
We’ll have to say right here that even after a lengthy test period with this Bronco and prior experience with other trucks, we’re not sure. Certainly there is a huge mass of buyers for what the manufacturers have come to call “sport trucks,” buyers for whom the look of rugged machismo is as important as the look of sleekness is to any sporty car guy. But one thing is sure. The bulk of the buyers for this kind of truck are, according to Ford, under 30 years old.
Ford also says it tailored this new Bronco just for those people. Essentially a pickup from the B-pillar forward, the new Bronco is much larger than the old one; over two feet longer, ten inches wider and five higher. Positively awash in new features, its only real resemblance to the old box-basic Bronco of yesterday seems to be its name. Viewed with automotive eyes, the metamorphosis is strikingly reminiscent of the days when cars got “better” by getting longer, lower, and wider.

View Photos

Humphrey SuttonCar and Driver

The basic Bronco package is called the Custom (which used to mean special, but has been successfully twisted by non-speak to mean standard), and includes a 351-cubic inch V-8 with two-barrel carburetor, a four-speed manual transmission with synchromesh on only the top three gears, and part-time four-wheel drive with manually locking hubs. Inside, the Custom delivers little more than what seems like minimal comfort in car terms, with two bucket seats and no rear seat (a front bench and rear folding bench are optional items), and a detachable fiberglass cargo-area roof. The basic Bronco rides on rigid axles in front and back. Two control arms, a big Panhard rod, coil springs and single shocks keep the front in line, while the rear axle is lashed to hefty six-leaf semi-elliptical springs.
All of that in a Custom will cost you around $6500. But even with the sport­-coupe styling on the side and the big-hauler replica grille, you can tell you’ll want a bit more. So you can start ticking off the options boxes and when you’ve duplicated our test truck, you’ll have a distant relation indeed to the Spartan bush-basher. In fact, when you grab a handful of chromed door handle and lever yourself up into a Bronco like ours, you’ll probably feel like you’ve stepped into a Galaxie 500 instead of something designed to climb 60-degree dirt banks.

View Photos

Humphrey SuttonCar and Driver

You sit high up gazing out over a big square hood (through tinted glass, naturally), grasping a leather-covered steering wheel and sitting on a comfy bucket seat with center panels of Scandia cloth. Your feet nestle in plush color-keyed carpet that literally climbs the walls. A dash that could have come from any Ford car stretches away to the passenger side, and a big, roomy storage bin fits neatly between you and the right seat. In the dash, an AM/FM stereo radio, powerful air conditioning and a big CB jack make life on the road bearable. The only giveaway that this is something other than a roomy sedan is the transfer-case shifter sticking out of the floor on the transmission tunnel. Flat black and businesslike, it seems completely out of place.
The visibility from your lofty throne is superb, broken only by a very thick B-pillar right next to your left ear. Already you can feel a sense of separateness from the scurrying world you just stepped up and out of. A twist of the key and the 351 murmurs to life somewhere up ahead; a discreet toe on the throttle pedal to see if it’s running okay—you have to strain to hear it at idle—and you’re ready to find out what life in the fast lane is like.

View Photos

Humphrey SuttonCar and Driver

The Select-Shift Cruise-O-Matic three­-speed automatic trans feels just like a Maverick’s. The steering is nice and light in the parking lot, the truck fairly maneuverable (it’ll turn curb-to-curb in 35.4 feet, less than some big cars), and that gives you confidence. Unhappily, as soon as the traffic speeds up and you try to thread the big, square Bronco through the crowd, the lightness turns to vagueness and then to steering feel and response that falls somewhere in the same-day category. The more you drive the Bronco, the more the steering demands your attention. At extra-legal speeds on anything other than four-lane pavement, the road seems uncomfortably narrow, and it only gets a little better under the speed limit. It seems at times as though the steering is only connected to the front wheels by the wispiest of strings.
The other systems work flawlessly. It shifts like a car, stops like a car (the big front discs and rear drums working in concert with our test truck’s bias-ply Goodyears actually stopped it better than many cars) and about half of the time even rides like a car. The addition of another pair of shocks to the front axle of our truck (what Ford calls “quad-front” shocks), heavy­ duty shocks in back and a rear anti-sway bar all aid in the ride and control of body lean, but even they give up over stutter bumps on the pavement, where the Bronco will skip neatly sideways. Needless to say, the combination of the vague steering and stiff, leap-prone suspension insure that the Bronco driver stays sharp in watching the road—at least if he wants to stay on it.

View Photos

Humphrey SuttonCar and Driver

On smooth road, though, the truck is docile as a puppy and almost as likeable. The Ranger XLT luxury and cruise control make freeway life as easy to take as in a Granada, only no Granada ever had a rear seat with so much leg room (recessed footwells are the benefactors) or a parcel shelf as big as the Bronco’s cargo area. Despite not being a true heavy hauler (our Bronco’s allowable load was 850 pounds over curb weight), you can still stuff a lot of things in the back. (We’ve had everything from a mound of racing tires to a Yamaha go-kart in ours.) Loading is fairly easy through the side-swing tailgate, and the outside-mount spare makes sense because you need to use all the limited cargo room for cargo.
If the Bronco is a pleasant but demanding ride on the road, when you aim its blunt snout into the weeds it seems to come alive. We never attempted anything more serious than ancient fire trails and sand dunes, but even bashing at full-tilt down the dim confines of tiny fire-roads the Bronco was a delight. Steering which seemed too light on the road worked just fine climbing a sandy switchback, and suspension only okay on pavement became capable indeed in the unpaved world of the off-roader.

View Photos

Humphrey SuttonCar and Driver

The bulk of the truck seemed to melt away as we hammered it through the bush. The trees would scrape against its flanks, rocks would jump at the sump and the sun would dazzle us in reflections on the huge hood, but the Bronco ignored it all. The mirrors are sprung to go over-center so that bashing a wall or tree at speed only means they fold back neatly to the door, the radio antenna unscrews quickly and about the only thing to grab debris as you leap through the forest is the trim. Ford has obviously done a good deal of homework on designing a fairly clean exterior.
Inside, the trade-offs made to make the truck comfortable begin to show, often in mid-air. The lack of a grab handle convenient to the passenger is irritating, the seats seem to need a little more support in all directions, and the seat belts slowly cinch themselves up on their inertia-reels until by the fifth or so mile of hard four-­wheeling, you feel as though they’ll cut you in half. Nevertheless, the Bronco seems to be confident and sure-footed in the outback.

View Photos

Humphrey SuttonCar and Driver

The drill to get outback, however, was more tiresome than the ride once there. You drive the Bronco most of the time with the two-speed transfer case in 2-High and the four-wheel drive front hubs unlocked. To get from street to wilderness, you’ve got to go through the age-old four­-wheel drive ritual: Stop the truck. Get out, twist the hubs to lock. Get back in, keep the gearshift in neutral, jam the transfer­-case selector into appropriate slot. (You can choose from 4-Low, 2-High or 4- High.) Head for the hills.
In times past, such a procedure seemed painless enough, but the advent of full-time has made it seem pointless. Ford even offers a full-time option on the Bronco for the first time this year, and after having the edge taken off our fun in the wilds by the hassle of the part-time procedure, we’d suggest a serious look at it for anyone contemplating a Bronco—unless, of course, you’re only going to use your four-wheel drive capability once a month to get to a favorite fishing spot.

View Photos

Humphrey SuttonCar and Driver

After awhile, though, you can’t help but wonder if the Bronco is really a fishing-­spot kind of truck, especially in the city slicker suit ours wore. Actually, we tried two Broncos, the red-and-white version you see in the photos and another one, with yellow-and-white paint, dazzling interior and street tires on alloy wheels, which was used for driving impressions. But both of them seemed more suited to boulevards than rock yards. Would you, after all, spend over ten grand on a truck like this and then risk getting it wedged sideways in some rocky arroyo in wildest Idaho? Not bloody likely.

View Photos

Humphrey SuttonCar and Driver

Which brings us back to those under-30 fun-truck folks. It looks to us like what the idea is with a gussied-up Bronco is to say to the world that you’re not going to be shoehorned into some little urban car, or for that matter, into somebody’s idea of a personal luxury car either. Everything about trucks speaks of a kind of aloofness, from the way they loom out of traffic jams like ice-bound whalers to the way they impart a certain peace of mind in wall-to-wall noise, traffic and angst. You sit way up there behind your big hood, kept cool by a superb air conditioner and kept mellow by an equally superb sound system, and after awhile it’s pretty easy to see in the Bronco an alternative vehicle, as much of an alternative as an electric car. It’s true that, like most dual-purpose machinery, it winds up not fulfilling either of its avowed purposes very well, but on the other hand you can’t escape the feeling that if the world has to support 6000-pound four-wheelers, they might as well be four-wheelers that can do something besides sit in your driveway and depreciate. It makes you look at big cars in a whole new light.
In the end, the Bronco offers no real surprises. You step down out of the cab after a day’s driving in both worlds impressed by many of its capabilities but largely uninvolved with it emotionally. Maybe, since it’s ultimately just a super-slick compromise, you can’t wind up feeling any differently, especially if you’re basically car-oriented. Its road wise character faults are just severe enough to counterbalance its apparently sterling dirt-wise persona, as though Dr. Jekyll had been fused with Mr. Hyde and a smiling but unmistakably average Mr. Everyman emerged.

View Photos

Humphrey SuttonCar and Driver

Like its more rawboned stablemates, the Bronco clearly isn’t a car, Ranger XLT package notwithstanding. But unlike them, it’s not entirely a truck either. And while such awkward but apparently lucrative ambiguity may make for great imagery, it seldom makes outstanding vehicles. In cars or trucks.
Counterpoints
Why do people persist in taking these fun­ trucks seriously? Trucks have less to do with rational transportation than a moped.
Of course, that’s exactly why I’m infatuated with these fat-tired brushbusters. To me, they’re the last frontier of the Great American Hot Rod. But the Bronco doesn’t exactly make me crazy. True, all trucks should ride as well on black-top, but I can’t imagine myself creeping down on abandoned logging road in a fruit-gum yellow Bronco. The mechanicals are fine, but the maxi-Mark V instrumentation and interior of this particular specimen undercut my off-road fantasies.
Housewives may like this sort of wimpy four-wheeler, but this Bronco isn’t the sort of thing you’d imagine messing up with guns and dogs and beer coolers and red Georgia clay. Ford seems intent on taking the Bronco out of the men’s locker room and making it useful and appealing. Maybe it is. But what’s so great about a rational truck? —Michael Jordan

View Photos

Humphrey SuttonCar and Driver

If it will tell you anything about my reaction to the new Ford Bronco, let me say that I went out and bought myself a brand new ’77 model as soon as I saw the ’78. I do not believe—as Ford apparently does—that America needs another Blazer/Jimmy/Trailduster/Ramcharger. The old Bronco was nice and small and its square comers were somehow loveable. The new one is big and plush and indistinguishable from all those others I just mentioned. The ride is pitchy, the steering wheel requires constant attention and I almost cut my hand on the seat adjustment lever. The tract-house carpets and rocketship instrument panel affront me. I think Ford put the better idea on wheels with the old Bronco. The new one is just another whopper for me. —David E. Davis. Jr.
This Bronco Ranger XL T is not really a truck. More like a trucklet. Any machine whose payload is pared down to four bales of hay in order to make room for a back seat has purposes other than simple trucking in mind. One look at the simulated-wood grain interior tells me this is a people mover.
But as a car guy, the idea of moving myself in a trucklet—never mind how candy ­coated it may be—suggests a certain requisite masochism. Still, I did my quota of miles and concluded that Ford is selling something more subtle here than self-flagellation. The Bronco is a legitimate excuse to get your head higher than those of other motorists. Even Cadillac and M-B drivers have to look up to you. That same scheme has given pleasure to storybook kings, and I confess it creates a certain feeling of omnipotence in me as well.
But not enough to convert me into a truck guy. And if I’m not going to drive trucks, I don’t want anybody else to either because they are a nuisance on the road. You can’t see through them. And this is where the Bronco problem gets serious. As trucklike as it is, it’s still not bad enough to force everybody back into cars. —Patrick Bedard

Specifications

Specifications
1978 Ford Bronco Ranger XLT
VEHICLE TYPE front-engine, rear-/4-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door convertible
PRICE AS TESTED $10,065 (base price: $6,543)
ENGINE TYPE pushrod 16-valve V-8, iron block and heads, 1×2-bbl Motorcraft carburetionDisplacement 351 in3, 5745 cm3
TRANSMISSION 3-speed automatic
CHASSIS Suspension (F/R): live axle/live axleBrakes (F/R): 11.5-in vented disc/11.0-in drumTires: Goodyear Polygias, L78-15
DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 104.0 inLength: 180.3 inWidth: 79.3 inHeight: 75.5 in
C/D TEST RESULTS 40 mph: 6.5 sec60 mph: 13.7 sec80 mph: 29.8 sec1/4 mile: 19.9 sec @ 70 mphTop speed: 95 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 211 ft
C/D FUEL ECONOMY Observed: 12 mpg

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

Small SUVs started out as off-road-capable beach cruisers. But as the smallest cars die out, the little SUV has taken on the entry-level role in many showrooms. Since they are replacing cars, it makes sense that they drive, handle, and act more like cars and less like, say, a Geo Tracker.

HIGHS: Sharp exterior styling, spacious and comfortable cabin, nimble around town.

Perhaps you’re wondering where the $19,995 Trailblazer will fit in a Chevrolet showroom that already has the Trax. Good question. The Trailblazer is slightly larger than the Trax but has a lower base price. Still confused? Well, as the smallest-SUV class grows, brands have started to double dip in the segment, effectively splitting it. Buick has the Encore and Encore GX, Hyundai sells the Venue and the Kona, and Mazda throws the CX-3 and the CX-30 at the same segment.

The Chevy Trailblazer Returns as a Crossover

2021 Chevy Trailblazer Full Pricing Announced

We drove the top two trim levels: the Activ and RS, and both examples carried identical $30,580 price tags that are far beyond the very basic base Trailblazer. They’re also far more stylish than the base version and its wheel covers. Activ is intended to convey a rugged vibe, and the RS is supposed to be the sportier alternative. Both come standard with 17- or 18-inch aluminum wheels and an 8.0-inch infotainment display. Both of our test vehicles came equipped with the $1720 Technology package, which adds wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, an inductive smartphone charging pad, adaptive cruise control, and LED headlights.

View Photos

Chevrolet

Upgrade to a Three
Under the hood of every Trailblazer is a turbocharged three-cylinder engine. There must be some shame in a three-banger since Chevy has gone to great lengths to scrub all mentions of the phrase “three-cylinder” from its press and marketing materials. Buyers won’t even find that phrase on the Trailblazer’s dealership window sticker. Base versions get a turbocharged 1.2-liter that makes a meager 137 horsepower, while a 155-hp turbocharged 1.3-liter three-cylinder serves as the upgrade. A continuously variable automatic transmission (CVT) comes standard with both engines. Opting for all-wheel drive means stepping up to the 1.3-liter, and that combination swaps in a nine-speed automatic for the CVT.

LOWS: The acceleration and power delivery you expect of a tiny three-cylinder engine, harsh ride, doesn’t make much sense at $30,000.

We tested an all-wheel-drive RS model and can both subjectively and objectively conclude that the Trailblazer is slow. The turbo-three offers a decent amount of low-end grunt, but it quickly gives up as revs climb and speeds increase. The 50-to-70-mph merge onto a freeway is a 7.0-second affair, plenty of time to gesture to your fellow motorists to please let you in.

View Photos

Chevrolet

Hitting 60 mph takes a leisurely 9.4 seconds, and the quarter mile passes in a yawn-inducing 17.1 seconds. These numbers aren’t the worst we’ve recorded in the subcompact-SUV segment—that dishonor belongs to the Toyota C-HR and its 10.9-second zero-to-60-mph time—but they’re disappointing. At the other end of the performance spectrum, the similarly sized Kia Seltos’s turbocharged four-cylinder motivated it to 60 mph in just 6.6 seconds. And don’t forget: The 1.3-liter is the upgrade engine.
A downsized three-cylinder engine theoretically improves fuel economy, but the Trailblazer’s mpg ratings aren’t much better than many four-cylinder rivals. The Trailblazer managed a thrifty 31 mpg in our 75-mph highway fuel-economy test, but the Seltos returned 30 mpg, and the Subaru Crosstrek achieved 32 mpg.
The Trailblazer RS’s exterior might be inspired by the Camaro and its big brother, the Blazer, but its moves are anything but. Quick steering gives it an agile feeling around town, but the RS and Activ models we drove were darty at highway speeds. It takes some getting used to, particularly on the highway when attempting minor course corrections to keep the Chevy on track. The quick steering is more appreciated on a twisty road, but the Trailblazer doesn’t impart a feeling of eagerness in the same way that the sportier-feeling Mazda CX-30 does. What’s more, the Trailblazer RS’s 18-inch wheels lead to a rough ride. And we didn’t find the Activ’s 17-inch wheels and taller tire sidewalls to provide much more compliance.

View Photos

Chevrolet

Comfort and Space
The Trailblazer shines as a people mover and offers over five more cubic feet of interior space than the Trax. There’s plenty of space inside and good rear-seat legroom, and four adults fit comfortably under its high roof. The 25 cubic feet of cargo space behind the second row is seven cubes larger than the Trax, and the cargo floor can be adjusted to create a flat surface when the rear seats are folded. The front passenger’s seatback can also fold forward, allowing the Trailblazer to accommodate longer items.
The Trailblazer is one of the best-looking vehicles in its class. But while the design inside and out hits the mark, the three-cylinder engine lets down the driving experience. We can see why Chevy appears to want to keep quiet about it. There’s also the matter of the high as-tested prices of the Activ and RS trim levels. A more powerful engine would certainly make us more forgiving of the high as-tested price. Rivals like the CX-30 and Hyundai Kona offer a superior driving experience and better value.

Specifications

Specifications
2021 Chevrolet Trailblazer RS AWD
VEHICLE TYPE front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door wagon
PRICE AS TESTED $30,580 (base price: $27,895)
ENGINE TYPE turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 12-valve inline-3, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injectionDisplacement 82 in3, 1338 cm3Power 155 hp @ 5600 rpmTorque 174 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm
TRANSMISSION 9-speed automatic
CHASSIS Suspension (F/R): struts/torsion beamBrakes (F/R): 11.8-in vented disc/10.4-in discTires: Hankook Kinergy GT, 225/55R-18 98H M+S TPC SPEC 3139 MS
DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 103.9 inLength: 173.7 inWidth: 71.2 inHeight: 65.7 inPassenger volume: 98 ft3Cargo volume: 25 ft3Curb weight: 3323 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS 60 mph: 9.4 sec100 mph: 31.9 secRolling start, 5–60 mph: 10.2 secTop gear, 30–50 mph: 4.8 secTop gear, 50–70 mph: 7.0 sec1/4 mile: 17.1 sec @ 80 mphTop speed (mfr’s claim): 130 mphBraking, 70–0 mph: 174 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.83 g*stability-control-inhibitedStanding-start accel times omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.
C/D FUEL ECONOMY Observed: 31 mpgHighway range: 400 miles
EPA FUEL ECONOMY Combined/city/highway: 28/26/30 mpg

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

As proof that Germans have a sense of humor, Alpina invited us to drive the new X7-based Alpina XB7 exclusively on a racetrack. And the track Alpina chose wasn’t even big and spacious; it was the tight Bilster Berg circuit near Paderborn, a course that been likened to a miniaturized Nürburgring Nordschliefe. There are 19 corners and more than 650 feet of elevation change in only 2.6 miles. It’s not the most obvious place to make acquaintance with a 5900-pound SUV. There was supposed to be a road-driving part of the program, but global pandemic restrictions meant cars couldn’t be readied in time.

2019 BMW X7 vs. 2020 Mercedes-Benz GLS-Class

Our 2020 BMW X7 M50i Garners Few Complaints

Alpina remains independent from BMW, but the relationship is sort of like the one between a remora and a shark. Alpina began as a manufacturer of office equipment, diversifying into tuning parts for BMWs in the 1960s. The corporate friendship has deepened over the decades, to the extent Alpina sees BMW’s future plans well before they become public and has official sanction to produce its own versions of the larger company’s models complete with a BMW warranty. To avoid overlap with M-division products, Alpinas are usually softer-edged and more luxurious than the M cars. Or, as with the XB7, they are aimed at niches BMW doesn’t think are right for M.

View Photos

Alpina

To distinguish the XB7 from the 535-hp X7 M50i required a significant power upgrade. Both cars share the same base twin-turbocharged 4.4-liter V-8, but the Alpina adds larger twin-scroll turbos, additional cooling, and a freer-flowing exhaust with switchable acoustic flaps. Output shoots up to a mighty 612 horsepower. Impressive as that number is, Alpina’s engineers are prouder of the 590 pound-feet of torque that’s available from 2000 rpm to 5000 rpm. Alpina claims a 4.0-second punch to 60 mph. Our long-term BMW X7 M50i reached the mark in 4.1 seconds, so expect the XB7 to land somewhere in the mid-3s. Should you feel the need to hurl nearly three tons of SUV down the road at 180 mph, the optional Pirelli P Zero summer tires meet such needs. The XB7 comes with 21-inch wheels, but buyers will be able to upgrade to 23-inch wheels with Alpina’s classic narrow spokes for $2600.

View Photos

Alpina

Considering its $142,295 price, the XB7 is a subtle beast, certainly when compared to showier seven-seat ultra-luxe SUVs like the three-row Bentley Bentayga and both AMG and Maybach variants of the Mercedes GLS. The Alpina gets new bumpers, with the front incorporating the company’s name in capitalized letters and the rear featuring four large exhaust pipes. Buyers in some markets will be able to add the intricate pinstriping that has been one of the brand’s visual hallmarks since the 1970s, but this won’t be offered in North America, sadly.

View Photos

Alpina

The cabin is predictably close to the interior of any other high-end X7. The noticeable changes are the arrival of a thick-rimmed steering wheel that bears Alpina’s logo instead of the BMW roundel, Alpina branding on the circular iDrive controller and digital instrument pack, a plate giving the car’s number on the center console, and a smattering of other Alpina logos. Buyers will be able to choose between a six-seat layout with second-row captain chairs or a bench and room for seven passengers. Beyond the special bits, the cabin is, of course, as spacious and comfortable as any other X7.
On the tight track, the big SUV is every bit as quick as its official numbers claim. Bilster Berg’s modest straights are devoured to the beat of a muscular V-8 soundtrack. But the combination of huge torque and a smart-shifting eight-speed automatic transmission means there’s no need to work the engine to 6500 rpm to experience uncomfortable levels of acceleration.

View Photos

Alpina

The Alpina also corners well for something so big and heavy, turning keenly, biting its way to apexes, and finding impeccable traction even in tighter bends. A number of dynamic aids work to make this assault on physics seem effortless. There’s an active anti-roll system and rear-axle steering to sharpen low-speed responses. But from the lofty perch of the driver’s seat, it all felt stable, secure, and calm.
The XB7’s standard air springs drop it by 0.8 inch in Sport mode, with Sport Plus taking it another 0.8 inch closer to the ground. It automatically drops the full 1.6 inches at speeds above 155 mph, regardless of the mode it is in. Even as low as it will go and with the dampers in their firmest setting, the ride remains compliant in Sport Plus, a point proved by some strategic use of Bilster Berg’s serrated curbing. Alpina models have always prioritized comfort and high-speed stability over the rock-hard suspension German automakers often associate with sporting aspirations, and although we will need to get the XB7 on road to confirm, we suspect it will cope well with the real world.

View Photos

Alpina

One thing Bilster Berg did demonstrate, to little surprise, is that the XB7’s brakes struggle with racetrack use. Despite being fitted with the optional upgrade of drilled rotors and higher-performance pads, and having to follow a pace car, our XB7’s brakes were clearly suffering at the end of a stint on track. The pedal stayed firm, but stopping distances began creeping up and pungent smells started entering the cabin. It’s an issue we suspect very few owners are likely to encounter under everyday use.
With no prospect of an X7 M, the XB7 effectively represents the top of the X7 range. The XB7 will be produced alongside the regular-grade X7s at the Spartanburg plant in South Carolina and sold alongside the existing B7 sedan by BMW dealers in the United States and Canada. Few will have actual need of the increase in performance over the already potent M50i version, yet the $28,000 supplement doesn’t look outrageous for the extra urge, top-dog status, and exclusivity of the Alpina badge.

Specifications

Specifications
2021 Alpina XB7
VEHICLE TYPE front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 6- or 7-passenger, 4-wagon
BASE PRICE $142,295
ENGINE TYPE twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, port and direct fuel injectionDisplacement 268 in3, 4395 cm3Power 612 hp @ 6500 rpmTorque 590 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm
TRANSMISSION 8-speed automatic
DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 122.2 inLength: 203.3 inWidth: 78.7 inHeight: 70.7 inPassenger volume: 142 ft3Cargo volume: 12 ft3Curb weight (C/D est): 5950 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST) 60 mph: 3.6 sec100 mph: 10.0 sec1/4 mile: 12.1 secTop speed: 180 mph
EPA FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST) Combined/city/highway: 16/14/20 mpg

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More

From the July 1995 Issue of Car and Driver.

In 1897, Captain S.A. Swiggett wrote a book called The Bright Side of Prison Life. It occurred to me to take a copy to southern Ohio, where we were testing five supercars, any one of which could get me arrested while cruising in second gear on eastern interstates. Our assault on Ohio’s scenic Hocking Hills would be swift and inter­national in flavor. In total, we had 1745 horsepower on tap, from $472,000 worth of exotica. And our five supercar contes­tants represented five countries: America (Dodge Viper RT/10), Germany (Porsche 911 Turbo) Great Britain (Lotus Esprit S4S), Italy (Ferrari F355), and Japan (Acura NSX-T). Think of it as the Olympics of supercars.

European Supercars Comparison Test (2010)

From the Archive: Supercar Comparison Test (2005)

The newest weaponry on the supercar scene—the Porsche and Ferrari—triggered this comparison test. In making our other selections, there seemed no good reason to include anything with a price higher than the Ferrari’s $128,800, and all five voting editors agreed it wouldn’t have changed the outcome anyway. Before the Anglo­philes complain, remember that the McLaren Fl is not legal here. Subscribers enamored of Italian machinery should note that the Ferrari F50 isn’t ready yet, and no Bugatti EB110 has yet been sold in America. Red-white-and-blue patriots should similarly recall that the Corvette ZR-1, which admittedly would have been a better-rounded ambassador than the Dodge Viper, went the way of the pas­senger pigeon one month before this story would appear.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURST

Our vehicles thus assembled, it was curious to discover that, quite without trying, we wound up with no similar engine architectures. The engines include a single-turbo inline four, a twin-turbo flat-six, a DOHC V-6, a 40-valve V-8, and a pushrod V-10. The Lotus, the Ferrari, and the NSX are mid-engined. The Porsche is rear-engined. The Viper is front-engined. From a styling standpoint—at least according to Ohio and Michigan citizens who rushed us at every fuel stop—not one of these vehicles looks very much like any other.
So what did we hope to discover in one week of driving? We, needed to know which was the fastest, and we found out after just one day at Ohio’s sprawling Transportation Research Center. The intangibles were trickier. Which car is eas­iest to drive at nine-tenths on public roads? Which impresses onlookers most? Which is the most fun to drive, never mind its per­formance envelope? Which is the most potent and comfortable long-distance tourer? Which is the most passionate? Which feels the least likely to spend its life atop a service hoist?

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

It took a week of nonstop driving and late-night arguing to find out, during which interval we pushed the vehicles hard enough that both the NSX and the Viper had to be retrieved from ditches. Said C/D godfather Brock Yates, as he brushed pieces of hemlock bough and sandstone grit off his vest: “At about 90 percent of their capabilities, all five of these cars are hugely competent and benign, lulling their drivers into Fangio-like confidence. But put one toe over the edge and there’s an excellent chance you’ll get to help refur­nish your insurance agent’s new home in Grosse Pointe.”
Or, to put it another way, begin memorizing passages from The Bright Side of Prison Life.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURST

Fifth Place: Lotus Esprit S4S
Twenty years ago, our first test of a Lotus Esprit offered this keen insight: “The factory is frank about the Esprit’s unsuitability for grand touring . . . the twin tanks should be filled with gas des­tined to be burned in bursts of back-road berserking.”
Not much has changed in two decades, although thanks to a larger Garrett turbo and larger inlet valves, the Lotus’s mani­acally peaky 2.2-liter four-banger now delivers an even more berserk steady-state 285 hp and briefly as much as 300 hp, if the weather on Route 595 near Logan, Ohio, is sufficiently cool and dry. When the turbo kicks in at around 2700 rpm, it’s like being smacked in the back of the head with a warped nine-iron. A kind of blurry trauma ensues. Full boost in the rain will light up the rear tires in first, second, and third gears. At which point, the Esprit’s tail yaws right on crowned roads, the driver countersteers like Damon Hill, then the whole mess straightens out after a vicious snap that leaves onlookers wondering if you’ve lost your mind or are just insanely rich. Or both.
The 60-mph barrier topples in 4.4 seconds, making the Esprit quicker in a straight line than a 405-hp Corvette ZR-1, which possibly did not amuse Detroit engineers back when GM owned Lotus.
There is much about the Esprit that is race-car-like. The pedals are skewed inboard and are so close together that Simpson’s best Nomex booties are recommended. The steering is knife-like and fast, although it is a great match for the car’s flat, neutral cornering stance. Once you push through the surging andsucking power assist for the Brembo brakes, you have exactly the pedal feel you’d want in Turn One at Long Beach.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURST

Far less race-ready is the Renault-based gear linkage, a high-effort yet mushy affair. “It’s like making a long-distance call to Paris to make a gearchange,” says Kevin Smith. It is also fragile, not a good trait in turbo cars, which encourage quick shifting to keep the boost on the boil. This may explain why second gear was no longer with us at the end of this test. Similarly unrefined is the Esprit’s powerplant, which bangs and bucks as if it were a 2.2-liter K-car engine forced to produce the highest specific output of any in-line four in America. Not a far-fetched analogy.
Still, the Esprit’s cuneiform figure—its waist-high profile, even its gaudy wing that overreaches the rear bumper—makes onlookers gawk and chase, although they rarely know what they’re looking at. They mouth the word “Lotus,” then say, “Oh, the Pretty Woman car.” But they always assume that it costs more than its $80,340 base.
Cranky, quirky, and as breakable as Waterford crystal, the Lotus finished last but by only two points. It is eccentric (hell, when did you last hear of a supercar get­ting a 27-mpg EPA highway rating?), a lean point-and-squirt machine for nasty, unpredictable roads. Such as the wicked little lanes around Norwich. Think of it as half Formula Ford made street-legal, half Barbara Woodhouse on PCP.
1995 Lotus Esprit S4S300-hp inline-4, 5-speed manual, 2969 lbBase/as-tested price: $80,340/$87,904C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 4.4 sec1/4 mile: 13.0 @ 108 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 189 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.94 gC/D observed fuel economy: 17 mpg

Fourth Place: Dodge Viper RT/10
The Dodge Viper is the antithesis of the Lotus. Where the Lotus is a kind of .22-caliber Olympic target pistol, the Viper is simply an 16-inch cannon yanked off the deck of the USS Missouri. The Lotus is the lightest car in the group, the Viper is the heaviest. The Lotus has the smallest engine in the group, the Viper’s 488-cube thunderbox is the most mammoth passenger-car powerplant in production. The Lotus offers the fastest lane-change capa­bility, the Viper possesses the slowest.
Yet in this comparo, the Viper occu­pies fourth place rather than fifth. Here are three reasons: (1) big torque exists at any engine revolution, (2) its shape evokes involuntary seizures among all onlookers, and (3) it has the lowest sticker price in all of supercardom.
Of course, there are good reasons for the Viper’s bargain-basement $62K tariff. No roof, for instance. And a hose-it-down plasticky interior with low-rent switch-gear. And a ride like a Ford F150’s. And a full-throttle exhaust blat that sounds like a tornado ripping out the seams of a Holy Rollers’ revival tent. All of which we gra­ciously accept, because it’s precisely what Chrysler promised back in 1992. What we didn’t count on was this car’s spooky steering and villainous handling.
The Viper hunts and darts under braking. It resolutely follows even minute irregularities in the road. Its rear end steps out when you poke the power. And, as Csaba Csere describes it: “There’s a moment where nothing happens between turn-in and when the tires actually hook up. It saps your confidence if you’re hustling.”

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURST

The snaky handling (“This is the only car I’ve ever spun on the skidpad,” notes Don Schroeder) is likely a result of unfin­ished development. God knows, the Viper has all the rubber it could ever want, and its weight bias is the closest to perfect in this group—an astounding claim for a car whose nose carries an engine the size of John Madden’s refrigerator.
In many ways, owning a Viper is like owning a powerful motorcycle. “Without a real top, it’s too reliant on the weather,’ says Kevin Smith, who also noted that removing and replacing those rudimentary canvas pieces is a tedious, fussy, two-mar job. “Yeah, it’s the world’s largest Fat Boy Harley,” added Yates, “and you might even want to put your feet down roaring into turns—this is the only non-ABS – equipped car in the bunch.” Also the only one without even a single airbag.
Although it’s tied with the 911 Turbo in the horsepower wars, the Viper accel­erates to 60 mph and through the quarter-mile half a second slower. Put 400 horsepower in nearly any street car and you might want to think about four-wheel drive, a concept that was implemented in Weissach but not at the New Mack Assembly Plant.
The Viper is like using a Louisville Slugger to play ping-pong. You wind up with drastic, if clumsy, results. It is big, crude, deafening, and something of a car­toon. “On the other hand,” noted Yates in the logbook, “every time we’d show up in a small town, the locals clumped around one car and one car only: the one built in Detroit.”
1995 Dodge Viper RT/10400-hp V-10, 6-speed manual, 3534 lbBase/as-tested price: $61,975/$61,975C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 4.3 sec1/4 mile: 12.8 @ 109 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 180 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.98 gC/D observed fuel economy: 14 mpg

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

Third Place: Ferrari F355
For Ferrari, the F355 is a radical departure. Don’t believe us? Consider one entry in its logbook: “This car has a climate-control system that really works; in fact, it works better than the Porsche’s.”
C/D has traditionally been slow to praise Ferraris, in part because the manufacturer’s performance claims tend to be inflated, in part because the cars have been imprac­tical and unreliable, in part because their sticker prices gave us nosebleeds.
So check out the stats on the company’s newest and cheapest offering: 0-to-60 and quarter-mile times only 0.2 second behind the 400-hp Viper’s. A stopping distance so close to the Porsche’s that Stuttgart’s engineers may pull a full Jonestown Kool-Aid klatch. And skidpad grip that, at 1.02 g, not only surpasses everything in this comparo but also bests the company’s own street-legal racer, the F40.
Add to that terrific steering with power assist as nearly perfect as the NSX’s, not to mention better visi­bility. Plus a ride that is taut without becoming harsh, not what you’d expect from a one-g suspension. Plus an 8500-rpm redline that produces an engine howl so sonorous, so much like a lightly muffled F1 car, that the driver doesn’t really miss the optional radio. (Hey, you want everything for only $128,800?)

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURST

“In the details of this car, Ferrari has done a lot of what Acura did to define itself, way back when,” wrote Kevin Smith. Indeed, the F355 offers adjustable shocks, unique in this group. It has firm seats that can be twisted into a wide variety of supportive shapes, plus a sophisticated exhaust bypass that meets emissions regs without strangling the 375-horse V-8.
Although it’s on such a clear course to modernizing its cars, Maranello ought to continue improving them. The gated, metallic shifter is still a chore and a gratuitous anachronism. The steering wheel, although adjustable, gives you the choice of either a good driving position or viewing the instruments, but not both. Moreover, this is the second F355 we’ve tested whose sticky throttle made it impossible to pick up the power smoothly in mid-corner. And this engine’s 24 inlet valves are so deft at swallowing accel­erants that the F355’s cruising range (when the fuel light began to glow) averaged just under 200 miles. (Yes, we were driving like Gerhard Berger, though not as neatly. But fuel economy worse than a 488-cubic-inch Viper? Don’t tell the Vatican.)
Only two points out of second place, the Ferrari was the Big Surprise in this comparo. “If the thing just cost a little less—say, the same as the Porsche,” noted Kevin Smith, “it would easily have been in second place. In fact, I might have voted it the winner.”
1995 Ferrari F355375-hp V-8, 6-speed manual, 3270 lbBase/as-tested price: $128,800/$128,800C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 4.5 sec1/4 mile: 13.0 @ 110 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 165 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.02 gC/D observed fuel economy: 13 mpg

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

Second Place: Acura NSX-T
For the last five years, we’ve regularly gushed and spouted and pontificated about the essential goodness, the quintessential purity, of Acura’s NSX. So don’t be shocked that this, the least powerful car in our super five (and also the slowest to 60, mph and through the quarter-mile), fin­ished only three points behind the fastest, most powerful car in the group.
How can this happen? Here’s how: track numbers tell you zip about a car’s usable performance in Ann Arbor traffic, and they tell you little about making nine‑tenths passes on the blind, downhill, off-camber turn just outside Burr Oak Lodge.
The Acura NSX is as user-friendly as the tumblers on a Mosler vault. Check out the expansive view from its low, forward cockpit. Try finding a clutch and shifter combo that so telepathically slides gears into place. See if you can locate any seats that are both this com­fortable and this adept at dis­tributing side forces. Locate a steering rack that delivers this much feedback sans kickback. Identify a removable targa top that can be stowed onboard without reducing cargo-carrying capacity by one cubic inch.

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURST

Built with the same monumental attention to ergonomic detail as a Honda Accord, the NSX sometimes takes a knock or two for being too familiar, at least inside, where some of the switchgear is pedestrian and the cockpit is an unnecessarily dour arena in which to celebrate so much fun underfoot. On this trip—for the first time—editors fantasized openly, if not vociferously, about obtaining more power, especially when the car was asked to launch itself out of tight uphill esses and switchbacks. One editor suggested a supercharger, another wanted a 3.0-liter V-8, a third asked whether a streetable version of Honda’s racing V-10 might fit. Which, in turn, made us wonder whether a six-speed gearbox, rather than the mandatory five, might also make life easier.
At $86,642, the NSX is no longer the striking bargain it was 60 months ago. Still, where the Viper offers a huge bang for the buck, the NSX is big civil subtlety or the buck. This is the brain surgeon’s approach to go-fast operations. From its bird-bones Suspension bits to its lacy aluminum skin, the NSX delivers supercar precision without beating up its owner.
But beware: Although you can throw it around; you can also throw it away.
1995 Acura NSX-T270-hp V-6, 5-speed manual, 3110 lbBase/as-tested price: $86,642/$86,642C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 5.2 sec1/4 mile: 13.8 @ 103 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 173 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.95 gC/D observed fuel economy: 18 mpg

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURSTCar and Driver

First Place: Porsche 911 Turbo
It’s the kind of formula you’d concoct in high-school study hall. Take a chassis four inches shorter than a Jeep Wrangler’s, then install a twin-turbo engine with, say, 400 horsepower hung way the hell behind the rear wheels. The result should be something akin to a golf cart powered by two General Electric turbines—the sort of car that would crash as you backed it out of your driveway.
Instead, the outcome is the most obscenely fast and sophisticated Porsche since Weissach loosed upon civilized society the all-wheel-drive 959 nine years ago. The new 911 Turbo is our choice as this planet’s most eminently practical supercar, the quickest A-to-B four-wheeled transport to alight on American highways.
About now, you’re probably muttering, “What about the Ferrari F40 or Lamborghini Diablo VT?” Forget ’em. If you’ve got 3.7 seconds to spare, the 911 Turbo will hand you 60 mph. That leaves the F40 half a second in the dust. Or, if you’ve got some empty road near your house, this Porsche will swallow 1320 feet of it 1.7 seconds sooner than your neighbor’s Lamborghini Diablo VT.
Not that those comparisons mean much anyway. The nervous F40 and the fat Diablo are 30-minute cars. After that, you’d like a cool drink and a brief nap. Not so the 911 Turbo. Cruising around town, this Porsche is more docile than a Carrera 2, partly because it’s quieter and partly because the standard luxo bits inside are more posh. And when you finally do tip into the KKK turbos, there’s no tire squeal, no exhaust roar, no darty nose. Just a seamless, silent, drama-free delivery of endless torque, accompanied by a rush of scenery that within two or three seconds takes on a vaguely hallucinatory hue, as if the nearby trees were all recently vandalized by Matisse.
“Twice on brief straightaways,” noted one editor in the Turbo’s logbook, “I glanced down and discovered I had inno­cently dialed up 130 mph. I’d have been horrified if I hadn’t had Porsche’s brakes beneath me.”

View Photos

DAVID DEWHURST

Not quite matching this machine’s warp-drive potential for effortless velocity are the clutch and steering—one is uncom­municative, the other is simply too light. Porsche intentionally removed 25 percent of the clutch-pedal effort, plus 15 percent of its travel. And as for the feathery steering, well, maybe it’s those new 8-by-18-inch front wheels or the GT2’s racing power-assist. Whatever the reason, the more rudimentary Carrera 2’s steering remains the best sports rack in the world, and we wish the engineers hadn’t messed with it.
Ditto the Turbo’s security system. An ignition bypass is triggered by pressing a button on the key fob. It sounds simple enough, but you can’t imagine the driver’s fury when he inserts the key, twists it for liftoff, and absolutely nothing happens Can you say “gimcrackery”?
We dubbed the Porsche “the lazy man’ supercar,” at least on the roads of southern Ohio. Although the Turbo is the second-heaviest car in this quintet, Porsche ha. pretty well masked its traditional tail-wagging-the-dog handling. Give out drivers 400 horsepower plus astounding wet-weather grip and they will—using one hand and half a head of concentration—keep up with any other supercar in this group. “It’s ‘almost like cheating,” wrote Kevin Smith.
We’ll come back to this wonderment, in part to report more definitively on some un-Teutonic assembly glitches. Our test car suffered an inoperative “Litronic” low-beam lamp, a snapped-off hood latch, a sunroof that ate fuses like popcorn, and a glovebox that randomly flopped open and spilled its considerable guts.
Still, no piece of machinery producing 400 horses has any right to feel so tame and violence-free. Said one editor, “I can’t explain it, unless this car is powered by dilithium crystals.” The new Porsche 911 Turbo is the German engineers’ 176-mph answer to whatever the ques­tion was, or will be. Captain Swiggett should be told.
1995 Porsche 911 Turbo400-hp flat-6, 6-speed manual, 3362 lbBase/as-tested price: $106,465/$106,465C/D TEST RESULTS60 mph: 3.7 sec1/4 mile: 12.3 @ 114 mphBraking, 70­–0 mph: 162 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.95 gC/D observed fuel economy: 14 mpg
This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io More